Quantcast
'Live Explosive Device' Targets CNN At Time Warner Center; Others [deskpro2k3 almost got blown up (again)]

Forums - Politics Discussion - 'Live Explosive Device' Targets CNN At Time Warner Center; Others [deskpro2k3 almost got blown up (again)]

CosmicSex said:
Everyone can see that Trump is unfit but if you have dedicated yourself to a certain group then you have to let that part of yourself go that is honest or even objective. You have to. Just let him in.

Trump is not unfit. I am very happy with my vote. If he gets primaried by another Republican in re-election efforts I’m voting for Trump. I am not sure it would be very human to not get angry at everyone constantly calling you Hitler or attacking your previous accomplishments or witch hunting and lying. He's never going to respect the media and it would be irrational to expect him to be more "presidential" in this climate. He rarely makes mistakes like the media says either. I'm fairly certain he knows exactly the type of reaction he is getting when he says things and understands the pros and cons to each situation. Trump's ego is huge no doubt. He understands strength actually helps him. He might get assassinated at any time, but that was always a problem. People acted like when he insulted Kim it was the last straw. Kim was fully aware when the Interview movie was released which brutally depicted his death in a comedic fashion. I'm going to think Kim Jon Un disliked that movie more than Trump calling him fat in a non threatening tone.

Last edited by teamsilent13 - on 27 October 2018

Around the Network
Hiku said:
melbye said:

This has as much to do with Trump as the Bernie-supporter who shot Steve Scalise has to do with Bernie Sanders

Yes, because Bernie encouraged violence among his own people.
In fact I have some Bernie quotes here:


(It's missing some of my favorite quotes though, like "I'll pay your legal fees" and "maybe you second amendment people can do something about it.")

Don't make false equivalences. I saw this inaccurate Bernie comparison from Lindsey Graham and certain right wing media, and I expected people to parrot it in this thread without even considering why people are discussing Trump.
It's not because this person was a Trump fan. That would be ridiculous. It's because of Trump encouraging violence. Both politically motivated violence, and otherwise. This is not normal for a president in a non authoritarian country. And what a president says, when millions of people look up to him (and some event believe he was sent by God), has consequences.

thismeintiel said:

Or the guy who sent white powder to Reps just a few weeks ago. Of course, that doesn't help with the narrative, so those stories are dropped quickly.

No one in Washington (to my knowledge) has encouraged political violence, except for Trump.
That has been the narrative for a few years now. This is not a new subject.
If Bernie had told his supporters to injure protesters, or "Maybe you second amendment people can do something about it", etc, then yes, his influence on the shooter would have been considered and his behavior criticized.

But as it stands, we can't say that Bernie has said anything that promoted violence among his supporters.
The same however can not be said of Trump.

I look at this from a different angle, but I'm also not saying I think Trump hasn't said anything he shouldn't have, like quite a few others in the political realm recently, and over the last few years. It's the people however that either take the words as meant at face value, or try and read between the lines right up to a conspiracy level of insanity.

Based on the various ways this seems to be viewed by the left and the right, the way I see it, is that apparently the Dems didn't even have to entice anybody to incite harm against their opponents to enable someone to use extreme violence against some Reps, where as the Reps have apparently had to constantly scream and shout and push for years to get someone to incite extreme violence against some Dems.

So which is worse? Followers who have to be heavily persuaded to cause harm to your opponents, or followers who will do so without any influence? A question you could ask, is would the Bernie shooter or MAGA bomber still have followed through if they weren't prompted to by political leaders?

The fact is that both the left and right clearly have their extremist crazies and whether you coax them into doing it or not, there is a good chance they are going to do something stupid at some point in time regardless. Trying to stay ahead of it, and/or putting an end to it as quickly and peacefully as possible, is about all that can be expected otherwise.

Last edited by EricHiggin - on 27 October 2018

The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

Hiku said:
melbye said:

This has as much to do with Trump as the Bernie-supporter who shot Steve Scalise has to do with Bernie Sanders

Yes, because Bernie encouraged violence among his own people.
In fact I have some Bernie quotes here:


(It's missing some of my favorite quotes though, like "I'll pay your legal fees" and "maybe you second amendment people can do something about it.")

Don't make false equivalences. I saw this inaccurate Bernie comparison from Lindsey Graham and certain right wing media, and I expected people to parrot it in this thread without even considering why people are discussing Trump.
It's not because this person was a Trump fan. That would be ridiculous. It's because of Trump encouraging violence. Both politically motivated violence, and otherwise. This is not normal for a president in a non authoritarian country. And what a president says, when millions of people look up to him (and some event believe he was sent by God), has consequences.

thismeintiel said:

Or the guy who sent white powder to Reps just a few weeks ago. Of course, that doesn't help with the narrative, so those stories are dropped quickly.

No one in Washington (to my knowledge) has encouraged political violence, except for Trump.
That has been the narrative for a few years now. This is not a new subject.
If Bernie had told his supporters to injure protesters, or "Maybe you second amendment people can do something about it", etc, then yes, his influence on the shooter would have been considered and his behavior criticized.

But as it stands, we can't say that Bernie has said anything that promoted violence among his supporters.
The same however can not be said of Trump.

Remember what Maxine Waters said about confronting republicans, the this happened

"A Republican candidate for the Minnesota House said Monday that he is recovering after suffering a concussion from an attack at a restaurant in St. George Township a few days earlier."

http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-house-candidate-says-he-was-attacked-at-benton-county-restaurant/497605921/



Switch friend-code: 6700-1526-7903

PSN: melbye82

OlfinBedwere said:
CosmicSex said:
He has a prior bomb threat arrest in 2002 and threatened Democrats on Twitter. The FBI also had his DNA on one of packages. He worked at Autozone, where they arrested him. They say some of the parts for the bombs may have come from there.

Damn, the Democrats have been planning this false flag operation for 16 years? Now that's what I call dedication!

No. There’s something called a fall guy. I’m kind of back on the conspiracy theory train. The timing of everything and how he was able to send all of these devices by courier. There was no postage not to mention Obama and those under secret service go through rigirous screenings to deliver something to their house. Twitter suspended his account, but before they did it showed him following tons of democrats and celebrities. He only followed Republicans in the last 20 or so accounts out of over 1000 accounts followed. The stickers on his van also seem to be recently applied. 

At least no one died, unlike Paddock who targeted conservatives at a country concert. Paddock was as described by his brother as non religious and was dating a filopino muslim. Yes, I’m a Trump supporter so que confirmation bias, but I try to explain my pov so all my points can be deconstructed if wrong. Not trying to derail the point of this thread. With Paddock I am fully convinced any narrative we get in the future will be full of lies and cover up. Devon Kelly was absolutely a leftist and there was witnesses proving it, but that was swept under the rug. With this I am more open to being wrong, but my tinfoil hat is enabled.

For anyone who believes I think everything is a conspiracy, no. I know Dylan Roof engaged in racist terrorism and would never call that a conspiracy. 



CosmicSex said:
Everyone can see that Trump is unfit but if you have dedicated yourself to a certain group then you have to let that part of yourself go that is honest or even objective. You have to. Just let him in.

Not everyone can see Trump as unfit, because they're delusional like he is.

OT: glad they caught the guy. Is It okay to call this one Deplorable?

Last edited by deskpro2k3 - on 27 October 2018

Around the Network

Beloved Leader’s collaborators continue to live down to my expectations.



Despicable behavior. Glad this lunatic was caught. Lol, and what sort of imbecile sends a bunch of bombs, each of which end up failing, and doesn't think in this post- 9/11 age that they'll be caught?

My mentality has always been - political belief and ideologies have a degree of subjectivity to them, but direct physcial threats, violence, riots, harassment, etc, is NOT subjective, and anyone who engages in them instantly becomes the problem.

At the same time, anyone who makes an outlandish claim like Trump somehow incites violence also needs to acknowledge the current left is largely doing the same ("there will be civility when we're back in power", "confront them in the street", "get in their faces" calls to lock Trump's son in a cage and have in assaulted, multiple calls by the left for assassination, wives of repubs sent rape and death threats, Kathy Griffin's severed bloody Trump head, Antifa riots, Republican shooting at a baseball game, Candace Owens harassment at a restaurant, media sensationalism etc etc.. Either you're of the opinion both sides have resorted to violence or neither have. You don't get to pick and choose unless you wish to blatantly show your bias. Etremist elements from both sides often have a tendency to be violent. That shouldn't discredit the more sensible majority on either side.



Follow me on Twitter, fellow gamers! [I typically rant and ramble about mostly Nintendo, indie, retro, and Overwatch related gaming, Metal and hard rock music, Classical Liberal and Cultural Libertarian politics, and bitch about Chicago sports].

@ItsAmeStephen


 

Hiku said:
thismeintiel said:

Then, you have either not been paying attention or are blinded by bias.  It's telling that you guys have to go back to 2016 for those quotes, ones that many on the right denounced at the time, as well.  Ever since becoming President he has only spouted the normal political rhetoric about his political opponents.  The Dems, on the other hand, have been calling for civil unrest ever since they lost the Kavanaugh battle.  Maxine Waters calling for mobs to surround Reps in public places and yell at them that they are not welcome there.  Corey Booker telling Dems to get up into Reps faces.  Eric Holder saying that when the Reps go low, "we kick them."  Hillary saying there will only be a return to civility when they regain power. This all while making excuses for or completely ignoring violent groups like Antifa.

It doesn't help when the Dems are constantly calling Reps racist and sexists who hate minorities.  Basically labeling them as pure evil.  Bernie himself said that the Reps policies would lead to "thousands of people dying."  Pretty extreme rhetoric that could easily trigger a crazy wanting to stop those "deaths."  If you want to blame the right for the fake bombs wanting to scare Dems, then you have to blame Dems for a man trying to murder a couple dozen Rep Congressman and the man sending Ricin, something that absolutely would have hurt or killed its intended targets, to Reps just a couple weeks ago.  Unless you are a complete hypocrite, of course.

Surrounding politicians and yelling at them is not violence. Which is what we're discussing here.
As for "going back" to 2016, first of all, he got elected because of what he said on the campaign trail. You can't say that doesn't matter all of a sudden. And he doesn't get a free pass on everything he said during his presidential campaign.
Secondly, he's still promoting violence against his opponents to this day. Just a couple of days ago was the latest one, where he praised a violent assault on a reporter. He said "Any guy that can do a body slam, he is my type!", referencing Gianforte body slamming a reporter because he didn't like the questions he was asking.
And it's not just when he is direct about his preference for violence that is a problem. Saying that certain news media is "the enemy of the people" is an incredibly careless statement.

The difference again with Bernie's comment about Republican policies leading to thousands of deaths every year is that he didn't brand them as "the enemy of the people" or evil. Meaning they can be reasoned with, or that their intent is not to cause harm, in spite of the outcome. But it is something he has to draw attention to, that in every other developed nation on the planet, the number of deaths caused from not being able to afford healthcare is 0. Only in USA is that still a thing, and the number is between 40 000 - 45 000 every year.

As for "blaming the right for the fake bombs to scare Dems", where did you hear that they were fake?
FBI said that they were "not hoax devices”, calling them “IEDs,” or improvised explosive devices.
https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/fbi-package-bombs-not-hoax-devices

And I don't blame the right or Trump for what this man did. Because I don't know exactly what motivated him. It's possible he could have chosen to be violent even if Trump was a nice person and never said all those crazy things. I criticize Trump for recklessly endorsing violence that very well could directly encourage people to be more violent, like in this case. Or the guy who got arrested after threatening to shoot reporters while citing Trump's "enemy of the people" comment, etc.

And that is why it is pointless to continue this discussion.  You can't see past your bias.  I called out Trump for his BS during the election.  I couldn't even bring myself to hold my nose and vote for him.  And while he has slowly won me over with his policies, I still don't like how he talks sometimes.  However, I don't have TDS to the point where I'm foaming at the mouth to use every little thing he says, or misrepresent what he says, to get him. 

This is what the many in the media have been doing for the past two years.  The most recent examples, that I can think of off the top of my head, are the claim he was praising General Lee, when we know they lied, because just one or two sentences later, he named Grant as the one he was talking about.  Or claiming when asked about if Ford, Kavanaugh's accuser, was mistreated or mocked, he simply said, "I don't care, we won."  A lie.  So, while I wouldn't say they are an enemy to the people, they have definitely been shaping themselves up to be the enemy of about half of the country.

You, on the other hand, continue to make weak excuses for your side.  Yes, because being encouraged to form a mob to surround someone, and their family if present, while angrily screaming at them, has never led to anything bad.  Getting up in people's faces, instead of debating them, is definitely the mature and respectable way to handle political opponents.  Saying they should kick their political opponents is a great message to preach.  And saying to continue the incivility until we get power is definitely not a call to continue the hostile atmosphere we are experiencing.  And again, all while either making excuses or ignoring violent Leftists like Antifa. 

Oh, but I'm betting you'll try to explain away all that because of the nuance of said statements.  Funny how you won't do the same for "enemy of the people."  Because as we have seen, crazy people don't get nuance.  Which includes the Sander's supporter who tried to kill a couple dozen Rep while they were playing baseball.  I'm guessing part of it may have been to stop thousands of those fictional deaths.  Like I said, extreme rhetoric that in no way is true.  And similar rhetoric to what the Dems have been using in the lead up to the mid-terms.  Maybe that is what inspired the Ricin attack on Reps just a couple weeks ago.

As for the fake bombs, here.  And when Sayoc was actually cooperating, he admitted he didn't intend to harm anyone.  These bombs were meant to scare, not kill.



Hiku said:
thismeintiel said:

Then, you have either not been paying attention or are blinded by bias.  It's telling that you guys have to go back to 2016 for those quotes, ones that many on the right denounced at the time, as well.  Ever since becoming President he has only spouted the normal political rhetoric about his political opponents.  The Dems, on the other hand, have been calling for civil unrest ever since they lost the Kavanaugh battle.  Maxine Waters calling for mobs to surround Reps in public places and yell at them that they are not welcome there.  Corey Booker telling Dems to get up into Reps faces.  Eric Holder saying that when the Reps go low, "we kick them."  Hillary saying there will only be a return to civility when they regain power. This all while making excuses for or completely ignoring violent groups like Antifa.

It doesn't help when the Dems are constantly calling Reps racist and sexists who hate minorities.  Basically labeling them as pure evil.  Bernie himself said that the Reps policies would lead to "thousands of people dying."  Pretty extreme rhetoric that could easily trigger a crazy wanting to stop those "deaths."  If you want to blame the right for the fake bombs wanting to scare Dems, then you have to blame Dems for a man trying to murder a couple dozen Rep Congressman and the man sending Ricin, something that absolutely would have hurt or killed its intended targets, to Reps just a couple weeks ago.  Unless you are a complete hypocrite, of course.

Surrounding politicians and yelling at them is not violence. Which is what we're discussing here.
As for "going back" to 2016, first of all, he got elected because of what he said on the campaign trail. You can't say that doesn't matter all of a sudden. And he doesn't get a free pass on everything he said during his presidential campaign.
Secondly, he's still promoting violence against his opponents to this day. Just a couple of days ago was the latest one, where he praised a violent assault on a reporter. He said "Any guy that can do a body slam, he is my type!", referencing Gianforte body slamming a reporter because he didn't like the questions he was asking.
And it's not just when he is direct about his preference for violence that is a problem. Saying that certain news media is "the enemy of the people" is an incredibly careless statement.

The difference again with Bernie's comment about Republican policies leading to thousands of deaths every year is that he didn't brand them as "the enemy of the people" or evil. Meaning they can be reasoned with, or that their intent is not to cause harm, in spite of the outcome. But it is something he has to draw attention to, that in every other developed nation on the planet, the number of deaths caused from not being able to afford healthcare is 0. Only in USA is that still a thing, and the number is between 40 000 - 45 000 every year.

As for "blaming the right for the fake bombs to scare Dems", where did you hear that they were fake?
FBI said that they were "not hoax devices”, calling them “IEDs,” or improvised explosive devices.
https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/fbi-package-bombs-not-hoax-devices

And I don't blame the right or Trump for what this man did. Because I don't know exactly what motivated him. It's possible he could have chosen to be violent even if Trump was a nice person and never said all those crazy things. I criticize Trump for recklessly endorsing violence that very well could directly encourage people to be more violent, like in this case. Or the guy who got arrested after threatening to shoot reporters while citing Trump's "enemy of the people" comment, etc.

I don’t get your “the difference again” comment here. Yes, one is somewhat endorsing violence, the other is making them fear that harm would be done to them or their loved ones. One would incite an angry crazy person, the other would incite a paranoid crazy one. But in terms of them being able to incite violence from crazies, there is no difference. I would even argue that a person is more likely to hurt others protecting themselves or the ones love rather than just lashing out in anger, but that’s me. So I find your difference comment to be a bit arbitrary.

To be honest, I find the “blame Trump because his rhetoric endorses violence” angle to be absurd (this is not aimed at just you but to everyone here). The same way I find someone blaming Bernie for a paranoid crazy guy shooting up a baseball game to be absurd. This whole thing is absurd. Absurd logic brought forth by media on both sides to get their viewers riled up, glued to their screens and to set them against each other and to influence them to vote who they want. The same way I find video games causing kids to shoot up schools to be absurd or that Islam is to blame for terrorists killing ppl to be absurd. From what I’ve read in this thread, it is disheartening to see so many ppl buying into this circus. You are not responsible for what crazies do, the crazies are. They are responsible for what they do, no one else. It would be different if your words somehow manage to influence normal ppl to do crazy things. But I do not see that as the case here.



First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.


Lucky you can vote but the votes will change nothing.